Harris v. Gregg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided July 1, 1897

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · decided 1897-07-01

Appeal .by the defendant, David Gregg,' as committee, etc., of Amasa R. Gregg, an incompetent' person, from á judgment of the . .Saratoga County Court in favor óf the plaintiff,- entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Saratoga on the 20th day of Rovember, 1896, upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order entered.in said clerk’s office on the 30th day of Rovember, 1896, denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial, made upon the minutes. ;' ■ - - . ' The…

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently May 1929

1 state decisions

Relies on Reeder v. . Sayre · Samson v. . Rose · Osborn v. . Schenck

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1897-07-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Landok, J.:

¶1It was competent for the plaintiff to show, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the custom of the country as to the outgoing crop. (Reeder v. Sayre, 70 N. Y. 180.) The defendant, by conceding that the parties were tenants in common of the crop, conceded in'effect all the plaintiff could obtain from such evidence and more; for, if the .plaintiff had, in violation of the contract (which is doubtful, Unglish v. Marvin, 55 Hun, 45), left the farm, he had thereby lost his right to the emblements. (4 Kent’s Comm. 73; Samson v. Rose, 65 N. Y. 411.) But, being tenants in common of the crop, Gregg, by converting the whole of it to his own use, became liable to the plaintiff for the value of the plaintiff’s share. (Osborn v. Schenck, 83 N. Y. 201.)

¶2The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.

¶3All concurred.

¶4Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.